D. Jeevan Kumar v. C. Jayalakshmi @ Abirami

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED D. Jeevan Kumar, S/o. S. Dhakshinamoorthy, No.5-42A, VKM Street, Nagaiapuram Town and Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh 517 589.

..Petitioner(s) Vs C. Jayalakshmi @ Abirami, D/o. P. Chokalingam, W/o. D. Jevan Kumar, No.131/198, Ashok nagar, Arumbakkam, MMDA Colony, Chennai-600 106.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:To set aside the order dated 09-02-2026 passed by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai in Crl M.P. No.51 of 2025 in M.C. No.224 of 2024, insofar as it directs the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000 per month towards interim maintenance to the Respondent.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S. Gunasekar For Respondent(s):

Mr.D.Dinesh

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 09-02-2026 passed by the Honorable II Additional Family Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2025 in M.C. No.224 of 2024.

2. The facts of the case are that the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 09.06.2022. Due to matrimonial dispute, the Resondent had left the matrimonial home and filed MC.No.224 of 2024, seeking maintenance.

In MP.No.51 of 2025 in MC.No.224 of 2024, filed under Section 125 of Cr.PC, by the Respondent, seeking interim maintenace, by the impunged order, a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. was ordered to be paid to the Respondent, as an interim maintenance. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, seeking the relief, as stated above.

3. This Court heard Mr.S.Gunasekar, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.D.Dinesh, the learned counsel for the Respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent had voluntarily deserted the Petitioner on her own volitions and without assessing the financial capacity of the Revision Petitioner and the means and ability of the Respondent to maintain herself, the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- p.m. to the Respondent and that without proper application of mind, the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed, as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent, by filing a counter affidavit, has submitted that the Trial Court had passed the impugned order, after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the statements of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is contended that, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amount of Rs.25,000/- as interim maintenance for the Respondent is not too much.

There is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order, nor does it reflect any abuse of the process of the Court.

6. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

7. The facts that the Revision Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent has not been denied. The amount fixed towards interim maintenance by the Court Below is Rs.25,000/- for the Respondent, which, in the present days of rising prices and high cost of living, cannot be considered as excessive or disproportionate or unreasonable. The said monetary relief granted to the Respondent, by the courts below is adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living, to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.PC are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance, which cannot be denied. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders, granting such quantum of maintenance, warranting interference by this Court.

8. In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned orders does not require any interference by this Court, as this court does not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders and this Criminal Revision Case lacks merits and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed, as devoid of

merits. There is no order as to costs.

19-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRCM TO

1. The II Additional Family Court, Chennai

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

SRCM 19-06-2026